Karu Singh @ Ranjeet Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54699 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-437 Year-2023 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Karu Singh @ Ranjeet Singh Son Of Arjun Singh Resident Of VillageMoulana Chak, Ps- Amarpur, Dist- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-03-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Amarpur P.S Case No. 437/2023 dated 17.06.2023 for the offences punishable u/s 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, total 20 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, hence no case is made out. Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of Full Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2019 (2)

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54699 of 2023(4) dt.07-03-2024 2/2 PLJR 1089. The Full Bench in the case of Ram Vinay Yadav (supra) has held that an application for anticipatory bail in a case arising out of Bihar Excise and Prohibition Act can be maintained, despite the bar under Section 76 (2) of the Act, if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR, no offence under the said provision is made out.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that the bar of Section 76(2) of the Act applies in this case.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the instant anticipatory bail of the petitioner is not maintainable and the same is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to surrender to the Court below within six weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail and the Court below shall consider the prayer of the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law and on its own merit on the same day without being prejudice by this order.

7. This application stands disposed of.

atul/- (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U T